Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Jersey decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Nautech Services Ltd. v Island Information Technology Centre Ltd. [2014] 2 JLR_Note 13 (16 July 2014)
Interlocutory injunction note on Anton Piller relief: information obtained under the order could be used only for the purpose specified in the order.
Nautech -v- CSS Ltd and Others [2013] JRC 153 (31 July 2013)
The Jersey Royal Court refused a springboard injunction, holding the plaintiff had not shown the defendants needed to misused confidential information to compete, and existing injunctions were enough.
1998/40 - Mayo Associates and ors v Anagram (Bermuda) and ors [1998] UR 40 (25 February 1998)
The Royal Court of Jersey refused plaintiffs’ requests to use discovery material in US proceedings and for investor disclosure, but allowed limited use by Cantrade.
Mayo Associates v Anagram [1995] JLR 190 (23 June 1995)
The court discharged a Mareva injunction immediately because the plaintiff failed to explain a serious abuse of an Anton Piller order and breached its duty of candour.
C.I. Law Trust Co. Ltd. v Scarborough [1989] JLR 354 (01 June 1989)
Anton Piller order refused because the applicant failed to show more than mere suspicion and did not establish a very strong prima facie case.
C.I. Law Trust Co. Ltd. v Scarborough [1989] JLR_Note 9a (01 June 1989)
Interlocutory Jersey decision considering when an Anton Piller order should be made and granting the order in exceptional circumstances.
Guinness v M. & A.C. Ltd. [1987] JLR 104 (27 March 1987)
The court held that information obtained under an Anton Piller order is normally limited to the proceedings for which it was sought, but use may be allowed in other identical actions if justice requires.
Explore more
